|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2002 : 16:44:18
|
Poll Question:
What do you think should be the primary consideration in the appointment of federal judges?
|
| Results: |
| Knowledge of the Law |
 [89%] |
288 votes |
| Religious Considerations |
[1%] |
4 votes |
| Both Equally |
[2%] |
8 votes |
| Both but mostly 1 |
[4%] |
12 votes |
| Both but mostly 2 |
[2%] |
5 votes |
| None of the Above(see below) |
[2%] |
8 votes |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 325 counted »» |
Last Vote:
04/12/2005 08:40:40 |
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 17:00:56 [Permalink]
|
You're going to need to get some senators or presidents in here to vote if you want to see anything but a bunch of votes for choice 1 among this crowd, @.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 17:06:11 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, but what the hell. After viewing results on other sites regarding the recent pledge decision I thought it might be nice to have one of our own.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Jesus
New Member
USA
34 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 17:13:07 [Permalink]
|
Thank Tomic ,I needed to vote without the feeling my vote was going to make me out to be unpatriotic
Eat more Xtian,taste like fish |
|
|
|
Atheist_Conspirator
New Member
Canada
6 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 00:11:32 [Permalink]
|
Atomic, you said that he (bush) is proposing a litmus test for federal judges, then you go onto "no RELIGIOUS test shall ever be...." Is it a religious litmus test, or just a litmus test?
I know the title of this thread states "religious litmus test," but it was not added in your first sentence.
But I'm sure Bush is kooky enough to attempt to inact a religious litmus test.
I heard him say this on CNN yesterday: "the common sense judges know that our rights come from god."
I'm glad I live in Canada--less fundies. In fact, I can't remember the last time I heard any major political leader go off on a religious platform. It's great! It's almost taboo for a political leader to go religious up here. In Ontario, at least
"Shall I show you the muscular training of a philosopher?"
"What muscles are those?"
"A will not disappointed; evils avoided; powers daily exercised; careful resolutions; unerring decisions."
Edited by - atheist_conspirator on 07/01/2002 00:21:59 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 16:23:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Atomic, you said that he (bush) is proposing a litmus test for federal judges, then you go onto "no RELIGIOUS test shall ever be...." Is it a religious litmus test, or just a litmus test?
That is precisely what Bush has proposed. Aparantly when he pledged to uphold the Constitution he had his fingers crossed.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 06:39:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Atomic, you said that he (bush) is proposing a litmus test for federal judges, then you go onto "no RELIGIOUS test shall ever be...." Is it a religious litmus test, or just a litmus test?
That is precisely what Bush has proposed. Aparantly when he pledged to uphold the Constitution he had his fingers crossed.
This is impeachment material. I think my Reps and Senators are going to hear from me for the third time in a week. It will be interesting to see what mental gymnastics they pull to keep Bush's ass out of a sling.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2002 : 21:51:37 [Permalink]
|
Well, DUH! Who would vote for other than #1?
Geeses Krist, has the dumbing down gotten that low that the Pres. doesn't know what's in the constitution?
* * * * * *
*Carabao forever.
-----------------
Bye, bye Los Angeles. SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES.
|
|
|
|
Physiofly
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2002 : 18:43:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Atomic, you said that he (bush) is proposing a litmus test for federal judges, then you go onto "no RELIGIOUS test shall ever be...." Is it a religious litmus test, or just a litmus test?
That is precisely what Bush has proposed. Aparantly when he pledged to uphold the Constitution he had his fingers crossed.
law!
The American Humanist Association issued a press release regarding President Bush's comment:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/litmustest.html
"Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a
deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions." - Niccolo Machiavelli
|
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2002 : 01:52:58 [Permalink]
|
I voted for Religious Considerations, because everyone knows that common sense judges know our rights come from God.
If you disagree with Bush or Ashcroft then you are obviously against freedom and America.
Entropy just isn't what it used to be. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2002 : 09:27:16 [Permalink]
|
I voted for Religious Considerations, because everyone knows that common sense judges know our rights come from God.
If you disagree with Bush or Ashcroft then you are obviously against freedom and America.
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
-----------------------
Entropy, your tongue is stuck firmly in your cheek, right?
I disagree with these two, fundie maniacs to the point of feverently hoping they'll both quietly dissolve in their own, fetid vitriol. For the good of the country.
I'm in agreement with Jesse Jackson. He's said to the effect that they are the most dangerous duo to hit the country in a long time.
Hell, I could have told him that better than a year ago.
Religion, particularly, fundie religion of any stripe, has no place in the courtroom. Only secular, legal scholarship should be on the bench.
f
Evolution is such a simple idea, almost anyone can misunderstand it. -- Theodore Dobzhansky
Edited by - filthy on 07/09/2002 09:32:02 |
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2002 : 12:33:05 [Permalink]
|
Yes just a wee bit of tongue in cheek action =)
Bush and Ashcroft scare the shit out of me. They are both insane, and I hope that someone can stop them before they do too much damage to this country and freedom.
Entropy just isn't what it used to be. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2002 : 02:58:24 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for giving me the setup for a small rant! It an't everyday I gets one.
f
Evolution is such a simple idea, almost anyone can misunderstand it. -- Theodore Dobzhansky |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2002 : 08:49:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm glad I live in Canada--less fundies. In fact, I can't remember the last time I heard any major political leader go off on a religious platform. It's great! It's almost taboo for a political leader to go religious up here. In Ontario, at least
Ahem! Is your memory so short that you have already forgotten about Stockwell Day former learder of her Majesties Loyal Opposition. Not only was he a born again, he believed the world is only 6,000 years old. So we are not totally covered in glory when it comes down to it. On the plus side his own party did dump him in part because his religion was seen as hurting the cause.
How to appoint a judge is always a tough call. They are generally there for a long time after being appointed. So you want to get it right. But what might be right for liberal pinko me, would not sit well with a waste o' space right winger.
I voted none of the above. While knowledge of the law would seem a no brainer, it is in fact not so important. A judge can always and most probably always do, look up the law for any specific case they are presiding over. I would think knowledge of court procedures would be of great importance and how to conduct a fair trial. Also of importance is the ability to withstand popular opinion or political pressure. Oh I am not saying that a judge requires no knowledge of law, it is of course desirable.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2002 : 09:02:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
President Bush has proposed a litmus test for federal judges although Article VI of the US Constitution states: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” What do you think should be the primary consideration in the appointment of federal judges?
I think the first one should read "knowledge of the law and capability to apply it independantly of their own religion and politics."
The sad part is the 1956 Act which made "In God We Trust" the national motto and commanded its printing on currency also added the phrase "so help me God" to the federal judges oath of office.
Cthulu/Asmodeus, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
Ogami
New Member
USA
15 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2002 : 17:56:36 [Permalink]
|
Uh, I must have missed the part of this poll that directly quoted President Bush stating he wants religion the chief qualification for federal judges. Does someone have a link?
Personally I think the chief qualification for federal judges would be whether they are strict constructionists with regards to interpreting the constitution, or whether they regard the constitution as a "living" document that can change with the whims of the moment. (That would place my vote under "Other", as I believe the poll to be imprecise.)
That is the current litmus test already imposed on federal judges by the Democrat-controlled Senate, whose leader Tom Daschle has been blocking federal nominations that do not pass his personal litmus test.
Is one litmus test more acceptable than another?
-Ogami
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
